Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR Review

It took Nikon nine years to finally release an update to its popular workhorse standard zoom lens in the form of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR, which gained a few new features compared to its predecessor, including the much desired image stabilization. Nikon engineers have always put extra effort and emphasis on updated professional-grade lens designs, typically delivering outstanding performance. However, the release of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens has been one of the most controversial in Nikon’s recent history, thanks to the negative attention it received from the photography community. Many reviewers criticized the lens heavily for its performance, claiming it to be a soft lens when compared to its predecessor, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. And some even put it as the winner in the “worst lens release of 2015” category. Did Nikon engineers really screw up in updating one of the most popular pro-grade lenses? That’s exactly what I wanted to find out when I started reviewing the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR lens.

Before I talk about the optical properties of the lens, let’s take a quick look at what the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is all about.

1) Lens Overview

A 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens is considered to be a workhorse lens for many professional photographers, since it can be used for many different kinds of photography needs – from wide-angle landscapes and panoramas, to portraits and events. Thanks to its constant aperture of f/2.8, fast autofocus motor and state of the art optics, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is not only designed to focus quickly and accurately in low-light environments, but also made to yield exceptional sharpness, color and microcontrast in images. With a complex optical design involving a total of 20 elements in 16 groups, the optical design of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is quite a bit more complicated compared to its predecessor (which only has a total of 15 elements in 11 groups). One of the biggest changes in the optical formula is the introduction of Nikon’s first ever Aspherical ED (Extra-low Dispersion) lens element, which according to Nikon, is supposed to deliver highest optical precision and performance.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 40mm, ISO 64, 13/10, f/8.0

The “E” designation on the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR indicates electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism, which not only eliminates the aperture lever on the back of the lens, but also provides very precise control of the lens diaphragm. Nikon started switching its modern lens designs on pro-level and enthusiast-level lenses to electromagnetic diaphragm, so it was expected that Nikon would add it to the 24-70mm update. Similarly, Nikon added the latest coating technologies on the lens, including Nano and fluorine coating (both on the front and the rear elements) to repel and easily remove potential dirt and moisture.

In addition, Nikon added Vibration Reduction (VR) image stabilization technology to the lens, allowing for up to four stops of compensation when shooting hand-held. This was a big change to the lens and something many photographers, including myself, were waiting for, as image stabilization can be very useful when shooting in low-light conditions. The introduction of image stabilization, along with the above-mentioned optical changes obviously resulted in a noticeably larger and heavier lens. Compared to its predecessor, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR grew from 83 x 133mm to 88 x 155mm in barrel size and gained a total of 170 grams. The lens filter thread also grew from 77mm to 82mm.

All of the above, combined with a high-quality build and full weather sealing came at a pretty large price increase – Nikon set the MSRP of the lens $500 higher than its predecessor’s initial MSRP, to a whopping $2,399.95.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 50mm, ISO 64, 1/2, f/16.0

2) Summary of Optical Performance

Before putting the lens through its paces in my lab environment, I decided to take a photography tour with the lens and see how it would perform in real life in the field. To my surprise, I did not see any optical problems with the lens – it performed admirably, showing amazing sharpness, colors and micro-contrast, something we are used to seeing from such high-end lenses. Based on my field observations I wrote my first impressions, praising the lens for its overall performance and versatility. And yet after I got home and tested the lens, I could not believe what I was seeing – the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR just could not resolve all the fine detail that was present when shooting in the field.

At first, I was a bit confused by this phenomenon, thinking that perhaps I somehow managed to damage my lens sample (although I never dropped and bumped the lens anywhere). So I requested a few more copies of the lens to see how they would do. Over a period of the next 6-9 months, I tested three more lens samples, all of which showed very similar results – the lens would do quite well in the field, but when shooting test targets at close distances, it showed pretty average, sometimes even abysmal results, particularly in the center of the frame. It became clear that Nikon certainly changed something in the lens and it turned out that it was done for a good reason. Basically, Nikon decided to address the weak corners (the biggest shortcoming of its predecessor) by changing the balance of sharpness across the frame. Instead of concentrating all the resolving power to the center of the lens as it was done on the 24-70mm f/2.8G, the new optical design was aimed at distributing that sharpness all the way to the extreme edges. This came with its own set of problems, as the center of the frame was no longer as stellar as it used to be. In addition, the balance of sharpness was also pushed towards infinity, giving less priority to subjects at very close distances – which is probably why many early reviews indicated poor sharpness numbers. You can see this clearly in the Optical section of this review, where I show numbers measured by Imatest, along with 100% crops from extreme corners, all shot at infinity focus.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 58mm, ISO 64, 16/10, f/16.0

What does this all mean? With the updated optical design and optimizations, Nikon essentially made the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR a much more balanced lens in terms of sharpness. This can certainly upset some portrait photographers who are used to seeing maximum sharpness in the eyes of their subjects when shooting at close distances with a high-resolution camera, but at the same time, the even spread of sharpness certainly does make many landscape and architectural photographers happy, as we no longer have to worry about soft corners in our images.

The above is a short explanation of the reasons behind the aforementioned controversy surrounding the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR. Let’s take a look at the lens in more detail and see what else has changed.

4) Lens Handling

One of the strengths of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G has always been its superb build, handling and ergonomics. Such lenses are made to last a lifetime (and more), so Nikon decided to play it safe on the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, by keeping it pretty much the same as its predecessor. This means that the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR retains the same strong magnesium barrel that houses all the glass and electronics, most of which are supported by metal components and reinforcements. Judging by the weight of the lens, there isn’t much plastic on and in the lens, aside from the tough plastic on the exterior of the lens barrel. In short, the lens is built very well, definitely to the highest Nikon standards. Although the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR gained 170 grams of additional weight, if you are not bothered by the weight of the 24-70mm f/2.8G, you will not notice a big change. The lens is still nicely balanced on higher-end DSLRs like the Nikon D810 and D5, although it might feel a bit front-heavy on lighter DSLRs like the Nikon D750.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm, ISO 100, 1/1, f/8.0

The change in the overall size of the lens resulted in the larger 82mm filter thread, which means that if one is considering to move up from the 24-70mm f/2.8G, they would potentially have to invest in all new filters and filter holders. Personally, the change to 82mm did not bother me as much, since I already owned a few 82mm filters from using other 24-70mm lenses like the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Seeing other more modern 24-70mm lens designs, I expected an increase in filter thread size…

The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is made to withstand both dust and moisture quite well, so it is nicely weather-sealed. The first sample I shot with saw some brutal weather (around 5 degrees Fahrenheit) and despite the freezing conditions, the lens performed flawlessly. Earlier this year, I subjected another copy of the lens to light rain and I did not see any build-up of moisture inside the lens and I did not see mechanical or electronic issues afterwards. Like other pro-grade lenses, this one is made for tough weather conditions. That said, I would still take extra precautions when switching between drastically different weather conditions. For example, if you shoot in extreme cold, make sure not to bring the lens to very warm conditions right away, as it will build up condensation and possibly introduce moisture inside the lens. Use a sealed bag when shooting in such environments to prevent potential lens damage and fungus build-up.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm, ISO 100, 1/80, f/8.0

Just like on the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, the focus ring feels soft and responsive, making it easy to manually focus with a thumb and index fingers while shooting images or video. When you move the focus ring and reach the focus limit, the ring continues rotation with a little more resistance, instead of an abrupt stop, just like on all modern AF-S lenses. Zooming in and out is smooth and I did not experience any stiffness issues at any particular focal length. The lens does not suffer from lens creep when pointed up or down vertically.

The HB-74 bayonet lens hood is very large and makes the lens looks enormous in size, almost like a telephoto lens. Despite its size, I highly recommend to keep it on the lens at all times, because it does help in dealing with lens flare and it certainly does a great job at protecting the front element. The HB-74, just like the HB-40 has a lock mechanism and therefore holds tightly and securely on the 24-70mm, unlike other hoods that come off by rotating the hood. While storing or transporting the lens, you can conveniently reverse the hood and it won’t take up any additional space.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 26mm, ISO 64, 1/40, f/5.6

Overall, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR handles very well and after using the lens extensively for the past year, I cannot complain about its build quality.

5) Focus Speed and Accuracy

When it comes to focus speed, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR does not disappoint – thanks to the latest generation Silent Wave Motor (SWM), the lens focuses very quickly and silently. Autofocus accuracy is also excellent, whether you shoot in daylight or low-light conditions. I have used the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR at dusk and dawn quite a bit and the lens snapped into focus pretty much every single time. When using phase detection autofocus, it helps to shoot with a latest generation DSLR that has better light sensitivity range and improved AF system – that certainly makes a difference. Overall, there is not much to add here, as the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR certainly does deliver in the autofocus department.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 34mm, ISO 64, 1/10, f/11.0

6) Lens Sharpness and Contrast

While the previous generation 24-70mm f/2.8G is a wonderful lens overall, it has a couple of serious optical flaws, such as a wavy field curvature, which when focused in the center quickly degrades sharpness in the mid-frame and the extreme corners of the frame. In fact, one can observe sharpness dropping significantly in some areas outside the center frame, then coming back again. Such optical flaw is clearly visible in Nikon’s MTF charts at the shortest focal length (observe the wavy nature of the blue lines on the right chart, which belongs to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G):

Although Nikon certainly attempted at fixing the field curvature with the new optical design, it is still there. As you can see from the left chart, there is a drop of sharpness in the mid-frame, then the sharpness comes back towards the edges of the frame. It is certainly a lot less noticeable though, especially once you stop down a little.

Looking at the above chart, one can notice that Nikon shows superior optical performance from the center all the way to the edges of the frame. Keep in mind that such MTF charts are mostly simulated and the data is simulated for focusing at infinity. As you will see below, focusing on a subject at close distances shows a completely different picture.

Nikon promises a much more even performance across the frame compared to its predecessor, although we can see that the older 24-70mm f/2.8G certainly did better in resolution slightly outside the center frame. However, the edges are where we see huge differences – take a look at how sharply downward the curve goes on the old 24-70mm f/2.8G and how it stays high on the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR. This basically shows that Nikon made significant changes to the lens design and the corners should be looking a lot better now compared to before.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 38mm, ISO 64, 1/30, f/11.0

Now the big question is, do the above MTF charts actually match lab and field tests? To answer this question, we will first take a look at some Imatest numbers. Here is how the lens looks at 24mm:

Considering that a stellar lens would yield around 3,000 in Imatest figures, the above chart does not look all that impressive, does it? The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G certainly shows better center sharpness here, as you will see further down in this review. However, pay attention to how close the mid-frame and the extreme corner bars are to the center bar – this is an indication of excellent sharpness across the frame.

Now let’s see how the lens does at longer focal lengths:

At 35mm, there is a slight drop in sharpness at maximum aperture in the center, but the mid-frame and the corners still stay impressively good. Interestingly, stopping down does little to increase the extreme edges of the frame, as they already look pretty incredible!

Similar to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR also starts to take a hit when zoomed in towards 70mm. As you can see, we observe an overall drop of sharpness at 50mm, with the center area taking the biggest hit. Stopping down to f/5.6 brings the center sharpness back, which becomes the sweet spot of the lens.

And lastly at 70mm, the lens still suffers in terms of sharpness at maximum aperture. Stopping down to f/5.6 again yields the best result, although the corners don’t look as impressive as they looked earlier.

Now what do the above numbers correspond to in the real world? Let’s take a look at four different images shot at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8, roughly @ 35mm, infinity focus (Left: f/2.8, Right: f/4.0):

And stopped down (Left: f/5.6, Right: f/8.0):

All of the above crops are 100% crops without sharpening or lens corrections applied to them. As you can see, aside from differences in vignetting, the image at f/2.8 is only slightly less sharp than the image at f/4. Starting from f/4 all the way to f/8, the corners look pretty much the same. Now that’s a huge achievement on behalf of Nikon if you ask me! In fact, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR does better in the corners than many other prime lenses!

Overall, the sharpness performance of the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is very impressive. While its center sharpness might not look exemplary, the lens produces much more even, balanced results across the frame.

The above numbers might not make much sense, since there is no reference data to compare with. For this reason, I would strongly recommend that you check out the Lens Comparisons section of this review!

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 34mm, ISO 200, 1/50, f/16.0

In terms of contrast and colors, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is a top class performer. The images are vivid and beautiful, definitely the signature of pro-level lenses.

Keep in mind that while the out of focus areas look good wide open, if you were to photograph bright lights in the background, the highlights might not look this pretty. If you want pretty bokeh, I would recommend to use a dedicated portrait lens instead, such as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G.

8) Vignetting

The previous generation Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G showed a pretty heavy amount of vignetting at the shortest focal length of 24mm, getting better at longer focal lengths. Let’s take a look at how the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR does in comparison:

Looks like the new optical design not only did not address the vignetting issues – it made them worse. As you can see, there is a pretty significant amount of vignetting at all focal lengths when shooting wide open. Stopping down, however, drastically reduces vignetting and once you are at the f/5.6 mark, you only need to take care of the darker corners at 24mm.

Here is the worst case scenario, showing rather strong amount of vignetting at 24mm in the extreme corners, infinity focus:

In all honesty, vignetting is not a big concern. I often do not touch vignetting exhibited by a lens, since I like how it draws the attention of the viewer towards the center of the frame. Every once in a while, however, I will remove vignetting in post-processing software, which can be taken care of with a single click.

9) Ghosting and Flare

The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is equipped with Nano Crystal Coat, which certainly helps in reducing flares and ghosting. Shooting against the sun might result in some flares and ghosts showing up in your images, so do not be surprised to see them when pointing your camera towards the sun, or any other bright light source. Keep in mind that the amount of ghosting and flare will depend on where the bright source of light is in the frame. For example, if you put the sun towards the extreme edges, you will most likely see those artifacts. If you carefully place your light source in the frame, you might have no ghosting and flare to deal with.

10) Distortion

Let’s take a look at how the lens handles distortion:

As you can see, barrel distortion is rather heavy at 24mm, which then transforms to pincushion distortion at 35mm and then gets stronger again between 50 and 70mm. I personally do not worry about distortion problems on my lenses, because they are very easy to fix in Photoshop and Lightroom. In fact, Lightroom already has a lens profile for the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, which is nice, since all you have to do is check “Enable Profile Corrections” under “Lens Corrections” and all distortion will be automatically removed from your images, as I pointed out in my Lightroom Lens Correction article.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 32mm, ISO 64, 1/1, f/11.0

11) Chromatic Aberrations

Chromatic aberrations are pretty strong at wide focal lengths and gets to lower levels at 70mm, as seen below:

Still, it is a bit disappointing to see that the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR does worse than its predecessor when it comes to CA. Lateral chromatic aberration is particularly worst at 35mm. Again, chromatic aberrations are easy to fix in post-production and Lightroom can easily take care of it in via Lens Corrections.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 52mm, ISO 64, 2/1, f/11.0

12) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G

Now let’s take a look at how well the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR does optically compared to the previous-generation Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. Here are both lenses at 24mm:

The difference in center sharpness is pretty clear – the 24-70mm f/2.8G does noticeably better, especially at the f/2.8-f/4 range. However, take a look at how much better the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR looks in the mid-frame and the corners. There is simply no comparison here, even when stopped down to f/8!

As we zoom in to 35mm, we can see that the situation does not get any better for the 24-70mm f/2.8G. While it is noticeably sharper in the center, the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR simply blows it away everywhere else.

And the same thing can be observed at 50mm, with the new 24-70mm f/2.8E VR significantly outperforming its predecessor in the corners. Interestingly, the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR at f/2.8 is as sharp as the 24-70mm f/2.8G stopped down to f/5.6!

Lastly, at the longest end of the zoom range, we can see that both lenses suffer sharpness-wise at maximum aperture. However, once stopped down to f/5.6, the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR outperforms the 24-70mm f/2.8G even in the center.

As I have pointed out earlier, when the new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is directly compared to its predecessor, it shows slightly worse center performance, but has much better mid-frame and corner performance. So its sharpness is much more evenly spread out in comparison, making it a much better lens for photographing landscapes and architecture. This is especially noticeable when photographing subjects at infinity.

Also, let’s not forget that the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR has some bells and whistles such as fluorine coating and image stabilization that the 24-70mm f/2.8G does not. Image stabilization alone is a huge advantage, as it can save a lot of shots when shooting hand-held in low-light situations. Many of the images presented in this review were shot hand-held and being able to shoot without a tripod often saved me quite a bit of time and hassle. For example, I would have normally never risked to capture a shot hand-held at 1/10th of a second @ 32mm on a DX camera. Thanks to image stabilization, I was able to easily pull it off without even thinking about it:

NIKON D500 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 32mm, ISO 100, 1/10, f/8.0

13) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR vs Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC

What if we were to compare the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC? Both lenses compete directly with one another, since they cover exactly the same range and feature image stabilization. Here are the two lenses at 24mm:

Right off the bat, we can see that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 does better in the center, similar to the 24-70mm f/2.8G. However, take a look at its corner performance – it is drastically worse in comparison. In fact, even stopping the Tamron down to f/8 does not bring it to the same sharpness levels the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR can get to.

Things don’t get any better for Tamron as we zoom in to 35mm. As you can see, the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC still have pretty poor corner performance in comparison to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR.

At 50mm, Tamron starts out much stronger in the center, but at the cost of mid-frame and corners. Here, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR still reigns with its impressive overall performance. Once again, Tamron cannot get close to what Nikon can deliver even when stopped down to f/8.

Lastly, we can see that the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC gets significantly worse at 70mm. Now the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is as sharp in the center and significantly better everywhere else at f/2.8, and once stopped down to f/5.6, it takes off big time without letting the Tamron catch up.

Overall, it is pretty clear that the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is a much better lens sharpness-wise when compared to the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. You also cannot compare the two in terms of autofocus speed and accuracy. Nikon is a one step ahead of Tamron in autofocus performance and when it comes to image stabilization, I personally found Nikon’s VR to be about a stop better than Tamron’s, so Nikon leads there as well. Obviously, there is a huge difference in price between the two lenses, so one has to assess what lens fits their particular needs based on their budget.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 24mm, ISO 100, 1/60, f/11.0

14) Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR vs Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II

Last year I had a chance to test the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II on a number of different camera bodies, including the Canon 5DS. To my surprise, Canon’s updated 24-70mm f/2.8L II lacked the resolving power to be able to show all the details in the extreme corners. Take a look at the below unsharpened crop from the bottom right corner of an image:

Canon EOS 5DS + EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ 38mm, ISO 100, 4/10, f/5.6

I immediately thought that I had a faulty lens, so I requested another copy of the 24-70mm f/2.8L II to test, as it was hard to believe that such a high-end lens would yield such poor results. After a few weeks I was able to obtain another copy of the same lens and this time I put it on the Canon 5DS R, which lacks a low-pass filter. Here is the corner crop from the same area of the scene:

Ouch, this one turned out to be even worse! And no, this was not something one could blame bad focusing on, since here is how the center of the frame looked on the same image, showing plenty of detail (no sharpening applied):

After these two lens samples and the challenges I had with obtaining a sharp image from the center of the frame all the way to the extreme corners, I came to conclusion that Canon’s 24-70mm f/2.8L II is simply not sharp enough to be able to resolve extreme corner details. This is especially true on a high-resolution DSLR like the Canon 5DS / 5DS R.

In comparison, here is what the extreme corners on the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR look like at the same aperture:

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 36mm, ISO 64, 1/500, f/5.6

Although the crop is taken from a different scene, it is pretty clear that the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is a much sharper lens at the edges of the frame.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 40mm, ISO 100, 1/125, f/8.0

15) Summary

Without a doubt, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is an amazing lens in many ways. Although it is a pretty expensive piece of glass, considering how well it compares to its competition, I would not hesitate to recommend it to those who want the ultimate image quality from their gear. Nikon engineers did a remarkable job by optically redesigning the lens and adding all the bells and whistles we have come to expect from the latest and greatest. Although some compromises had to be made, Nikon still managed to bring us the best 24-70mm on the market.

NIKON D810 + 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 38mm, ISO 64, 2/1, f/8.0

As you can see from the earlier sections of this review, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is nowhere near what some reviewers claimed it to be. It is a stellar lens in many ways, bringing much more even balance in sharpness when compared to its predecessor and the competition. It might not have that “bite” in center sharpness the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC or the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G have, but it makes it up by showing very impressive mid-frame and corner performance, something no other 24-70mm DSLR lens is capable of reaching, including the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Based on my careful research of four separate lens samples, I came to conclusion that the accusations towards the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR are either totally unfounded, coming from non-photographers, or are based on a single lens sample that might have been damaged. For example, DxO’s review of the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, where the tester concluded with “disappointing DxOMark scores” shows just how bad some lens reviews and research can be (DxO tests a single lens sample and their testing methodology is questionable). Sadly, many photographers trust such bogus data / reviews conducted by non-photographers and make wrong purchasing decisions as a result. In all honesty, I personally only trust one review source from a non-photographer, and that’s my friend Roger Cicala at LensRentals.com. He is the only person out there who takes the time and patience to conduct proper research involving more than a single lens sample. If looking at numbers and stats gives you a headache, my suggestion would be to find real photographers who actually own and use the lens you are interested in buying and read what they have to say (I always recommend reading more than one opinion). In this particular case, I bet you would find many who love and praise the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR…

Overall, I am very happy with the performance of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8E VR and I can confidently recommend it to our readers. Nikon enthusiasts and professionals finally have a well-balanced standard zoom that provides very even, prime-like performance. This in itself is a huge achievement on behalf of Nikon.

Related articles:

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Dan

November 22, 2016 at 12:19 pm

A great review Nasim. I bought this lens when it was first released and traded my old 24-70G against it. The E has noticeably better corners and this is very apparent in architectural and landscape images. It has a nicer transition from focus to out of focus, the colours are closer to the 1.4 primes and the mechanicals feel very solid. The zoom ring has a very consistent and solid feel with no friction as on the G with its know design issues. On top of all this I regularly hand hold mine at 1/15 second on a D800 with excellent sharp results. A great lens. If I could only own one it would be this.

Thank you for your feedback Dan and for your honest min-review of the lens. Indeed, it is a very sharp lens that rivals some prime lenses out there! VR is a life-saver in some situations – many of the shots from this review were captured hand-held, which shows how versatile the lens is in the field.

I have pondered upgrading my 24-70mm f/2.8G to this lens for my panoramas, although I’ll probably just get a couple primes instead. I’m curious if anyone has tried this for night skies yet? How bad is the coma at 24mm f/2.8? I usually use my 14-24mm, but sometimes I have my 24-70mm running on a secondary camera for timelapses.

Nasim, Thanks for the review. Very helpful. It would seem that it is now much more suitable for Landscapes but not so much for subjects closer to the camera e.g. groups and portraits. Partiality if you like razor sharp eyes/features. Is that a good summary or have I misunderstood. Thanks

Thanks. I have the 16-35. For landscape what would you suggest for people and general lense. Or would it be best to replace my 70-200 vr1 with new efl and use 16-35 for family and groups. Thanks in advance

Nasim, Thanks for the review. Very helpful. It would seem that it is now more suitable for Landscapes but not so much for subjects closer to the camera e.g. groups and portraits. Especially if you like razor sharp eyes/details.

I would be interested to see your thoughts on how it stacks up against the Tokina 24-70mm f2.8. I know the Tokina lens does not have VR so it isn’t a direct comparison, but I was considering it vs. the Nikon for landscapes since it is a much cheaper alternative.

Steffan, I have had a chance to shoot with the Tokina 11-16mm and the 16-28mm f/2.8 lenses, but I have not yet tried the 24-70mm. I should definitely give it a try and review at some point, as it is probably a pretty solid lens like many other Tokina lenses.

Thank you Nasim for this detailed review. It shows that the results from Dxo are not what we see on a screen ! What are your LR settings for so crispy pictures (Sharpness, contrats, saturation…) ? Many thanks, Régis

Regis, you are most welcome! Sadly, many refer to DxO’s test results without looking at any other data. When assessing a lens, I would look at several sources and preferably from those who shoot rather than just test lenses for a living. Having spent many hours in my lab, it is easy to get lost in numbers. I think it is important to get out and give our gear a real test, by actually shooting with it.

As for Lightroom settings, there is no magic formula that works on every image in terms of contrast, saturation, etc. If your weakness is post-processing, I would recommend to check out our Workflow and Post-Processing Basics course, where I show how I actually edit images both in Lightroom and in Photoshop. If you do not want to buy the course, there are many great tutorials right here at Photography Life that teach you the basics of editing. Check out the Post-Processing for Beginners page for more details.

Solid review i can see how the corner sharpness has an effect on image quality. I also can see how the balance towards infinity can make a difference. It would be interesting to see how this compares to primes that are within the focal length. I would challenge that overall sharpness of the 35mm Sigma Art lenses would be less then this. I feel like I’ve never seen distant objects with my 35mm art and D810 look as sharp as your first image on the summary page.

Great Images excellent review. I grabbed a black Friday special on the D500 time to turn off the internet and enjoy photography!

Andrew, I thought about including some comparisons to prime lenses initially, but I ended up not doing that, because there are too many primes that fall within the same focal length range (24mm f/1.4 + f/1.8, 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 + f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 + f/1.8, 58mm f/1.4, etc). And that’s just all the Nikons. Once you add Sigma, Zeiss, etc., the page would get too big and it would take me a lot of time.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a very sharp lens, but only when stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 range in the extreme corners. It does pretty well at infinity focus as well. If you do not find yours to be sharp, then I would do a few evaluation tests using live view and see what’s going on. Shoot a distant subject from a hill or a tall building, stop down the lens to f/5.6-f/8 and analyze the corners. You might have a defective sample or perhaps you might have a decentered element. Also, post-processing does play a role in how images are displayed on the web. I added sharpening in post before uploading the images, so they all look very sharp.

Appreciate the reply, i understand the difficulties with comparing to primes. I should have asked in my first comment if the Imatest scores from different reviews can be compared to each other? If they can i suppose there is not as much need to do a lot of comparisons in your reviews. Thanks for doing what you do!

You make a valid point with the element and i have thought about that. Also it is worth mentioning that i forgot about haze and fog. I should find a good clear day and do some testing to try and eliminate environmental impacts.

The D500 is better then i thought it was going to be. It’s not often that high expectations are exceeded.

Thank you for your feedback Didaskalos! The images were captured from a variety of different locations such as Death Valley (see my article on what to photograph in Death Valley), White Sands NM, Joshua Tree NP and Yellowstone NP. If you have never been to any of these, I would highly recommend them all!

Nasim Great review, I have been waiting for this review. I think your reviews are the most unbiased as anyone doing reviews. My question is basically is it worth upgrading from the current 24-70mm f2.8 VR. Currently I am doing post processing of my Colorado pictures, I have a recurring problem with pictures when I used my 24-70 mm F2.8 VR lens, the left side of the picture is not sharp (out of focus) as the right side. I had the lens repaired last year because the servo motor stopped working. Not sure sending it in for repair would be worth it, @ $475 to repair. Keep up the good work and have an enjoyable Thanksgiving. PatrickKelley

If the sides of the lens are not sharp, you might have a decentered lens element – could have happened if you, or the shipping carrier managed to drop the lens to the level where things went out of alignment. Before you decide to send yours to Nikon, I would do a quick test. Go to a high rise building or a hill with nothing in the foreground, then focus at a distant subject at infinity (say at 50-70mm), focus via live view carefully in the center of the frame, stop down to f/8 and take a steady shot. Then analyze the image in your computer to see how the corners compare to the center. If they look very defocused, while the center looks sharp (you need to look at all four corners), you need to send your lens to Nikon for repair. Don’t forget to include the image to the tech (you can attach through the web), so that he/she knows what to look for.

Thank you for the very balanced and fair review! I was initially also scared off by all the negative reviews and comments floating around, but ended up purchasing it anyway, and have also found that it’s an incredible lens deserving great praise. The VR feature really does make a noticeable difference in day-to-day shooting.

Mike, good thing that you did not listen to all the negative feedback and decided to research on your own. Sometimes that’s the best way to evaluate gear! The 24-70mm f/2.8E VR is the best standard DSLR telephoto lens on the market and I have seen many…

This is valuable not just as a review of a particular lens but as a review of lens reviews in general. In the past I made the mistake of buying optics based on lab test results, only to be disappointed by their performance in the field. If lens charts are you primary subject, then absolutely buy according to lab test results. But if you shoot three dimension subjects at a variety of distances then field tests are much more valuable. Sadly it seems some manufacturers are producing lenses that excel in the lab (hoping for big sales from positive reviews based on chart tests) but let real world performance suffer. Bravo to Nikon for not succumbing to this urge and cheers to Nasim for giving us both lab and field test results as well as some stunning eye candy landscapes.

John, thank you for your feedback, it is always great to hear from you my friend!

Very true, looking at test charts is not particularly useful when there is no field work that accompanies the results. And at the end of the day, we always have to keep in mind that all test charts are photographed at pretty close distances and with various potentially questionable methodologies, which might not at all correspond with shooting in the real world. It is always best to evaluate lenses in the field, which is why I do my best to spend a considerable amount of time with each piece of gear I review shooting outdoors professionally, or for myself.

And I fully agree with your statement on manufacturing optimizing their lenses for close distances. I respect companies who do what they can to make lenses that perform best in the field, rather than cheating their way into selling more of their products. I can understand how frustrating it can be for end users, who see glowing reviews on the Internet, only to be disappointed by what they find in real life. That’s why my recommendation is always to look at multiple sources, preferably from real photographers who actually use their gear.

I bought a pair of the new Nikon 24-70mm VR lenses in Oct. of last year, in succession, about three weeks apart. Both had the same problem on my D800e: a variety of focus related issues [ I had my Nikon checked out at Nikon’s West Coast facility just before making the first purchase to be sure all was well to eliminate any possibility that my camera was at fault]. After having gone through the left focus problems with my first D800e back in the spring of 2012, then suffering through two faulty examples of this new lens, I thought I was through with any more Nikon upgrades.

But reading your more-than-thorough review will make me rethink my decision. I may just give the new VR one more try. Thanks for the hard work that you alway do.

Paul, in your particular case, I would recommend to check the autofocus performance of your Nikon D800E. Mine had some serious issues and had to be sent to Nikon twice to get the AF module recalibrated. Thankfully, my D810 never had such issues, but if two lens samples behaved similarly on your D800E, the problem might not be with the lenses…

Thanks for the very good advice but that’s exactly what I did before I purchased the first and then the second VR lens. For both of my D800e bodies. And I have a floor full of G series lenses and I’ve never had a problem using those with the D800e. My theory is that I may have just gotten a bad batch [among the first B&H sold] as you may recall during Oct., 2015.

All is a moot point now as I’ve purchased a D810 and have experienced no problems with the camera.

Nasim, thanks for the excellent review. I too am very pleased with this lens over the previous version. The VR makes me feel simply unstoppable and I’ve enjoyed the flexibility of shooting at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. The VR is nothing short of fantastic and I can shoot easily at 1/4s exposure and even 1/2s with some care. On one shoot I switched to my 14-24mm forgetting it had no VR and then released why I was getting camera share blur. I have also found the look of photos shot with this lens to be an improvement over the prior version. It’s more of a subjective thing, but there is a level of crisper contrast and microcontrast. On issue I found that you didn’t mention was focus shift. When shooting close at full zoom I did find the center of focus to shift inward. In practice this hasn’t been an issue, since I simply don’t use the lens at such close range.

Ted, thank you for your feeeback! I fully agree, VR on the 24-70mm f/2.8 is incredible. I have also managed to pull off a few half a second exposures at wider focal lengths, something I was never able to do with my 24-70mm f/2.8G. It can be a real life saver when shooting in the field in low-light conditions. All of the images in this review shot below 1 second were captured hand-held – I rarely mounted the 24-70mm on a tripod, which was quite liberating :)

As for focus shift, I did not see major issues with focus shift when testing my lens samples. I saw pronounced field curvature, but focus shift was not as bad as on some other lenses. If you only saw it at close ranges and you normally don’t shoot at close range, I would not worry about it!

Nasim, Just bought the 24-70 E Vr after much research and thanks to your article (AU$400 rebate so AUD2500). I also purchased the 70-200 2.8 E FL to replace my VR1 (UAD rebate Au$300 so AUD2500). I think good deals. Do you have any suggestions before I use. Do they require focus checking with say the FoCal software. I have the 16-35 f4 so that will get less use now I think except for wide landscape. Thanks

It’s an interesting lens, and testament to the difficulty in creating a zoom lens that ticks all the boxes. It’s effectively an alternative to the original 2.8G lens rather than a replacement, and is either better or worse depending on how one intends to use it. For many, VR and even performance across the frame will be reason enough to upgrade. For my shooting needs, I’ll be sticking with the superior centre sharpness of my G lens.

I love your reviews, i find the sharpness test to be very helpful in buying a new lense. I have no doubt that this lense is excellent, however, even by your results i would still pick the old one. The 14-24 is perfect everywhere at 24 and the 70-200 is too by comparison at 70mm, and the 50mm 1.4 is also excellent, so i can not justify this over the old one, the center sharpness would be better for me, i never use the corner either.

Nikon are making some stellar lenses, the new 105mm 1.4, the new 70-200, i just could not use this for a planned landscape shot, and as a walk around lense the old one with better center performance seems better. I want to buy a 24-70 to go with my 14-24 and 70-200 but i cant.

Thanks for your extremely useful review! I must learn to take DXOmark with a grain of salt. I always rely on their “field sharpness” measure to see how sharp a lens is in each portion of the field, at varying apertures, but it never dawned on me before that this could vary greatly with focal distance.

Is it possible that the predecessor lens is a better choice for event photography because it provides a little greater sharpness towards the center and at closer (i.e. portrait) distances? I’m guessing that the answer would be yes, but for the addition of VR. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks for this unbiased review. This is the reason I only come here now and don’t spend much time on other review sites anymore. It shows you are a photographer first, than a reviewer. I want to know what the lens is doing on the field after a couple months combine with real images, not a pre-production sample and basic snapshots like you see on many review sites that only care how much hit they get.

You help me answered many questions. Now I just need a bit more money ;)

Nasim, good review, I like your reviews, those of Ming Thein, diglloyd and Lenstip + lensrentals… enough They are all a bit different, but if you know the sites you know what information is important to pick out.

I personally think that Nikon has the D5 type of camera in mind when making this lens. 20MP is not that much and this lens will do perfectly wide open from center to corner. Selling point is the 4 stops VR. I am sure they had to compromise some optical quality to put it in. For press people it is important to get the shot, in that sense this lens a big step upwards.

I’ve been through two 24-70 G’s and both had developed a tight zoom ring. I was really excited when Nikon introduced this new 24-70 VR yet hesitated because of the “bad” reviews. I needed the lens ASAP for a job so I bought one anyway. Wow I’m so glad I did! I was really surprised to find that the VR version is actually BETTER in every way than its predecessor. Well maybe except the price. The zoom action is smoother, it’s sharper across the frame, has punchier colors, and the VR is a game changer. The AF speed is much faster and it has a better, tighter fitting hood. After buying this lens, I started questioning reviewers if they’ve actually owned or used the lenses they test at all. Most of these reviewers just parrot false info.

Nasim, thank you for this beautiful and comprehensive article, I love your writing and insights! 1. I have noticed that most of your samples are f/4 or smaller. How is this lens with larger apparture (f/2.8)? 2. How good is it for face portraits? 3. If you had to pick only one lens, would it be this one or the 24-120 f/4?

I have owned this lens since it was released by Nikon and couldn’t believe the negative comments that were being released. I am so happy to finally read a review of this fantastic lens that supports the excellent results that I have constantly gotten.

Like you and a few others here, I can’t believe the bad press this lens has received. I have both the old 24-70 f2.8G and the new 24-70 f2.8E VR and the new lens is a better lens overall in all departments. As Dan pointed out, the color rendition is similar to the fast Nikon primes, which is a good description. The edge/corner performance is quite amazing, rivaling my 24 f1.4G! With the old 24-70 f2.8G, I would normally reach for my 24 f1.4G or 35 f1.4 Art in preference, but I feel I have less reason to do so with the new 24-70 VR, in fact, I may even sell off my Sigma Art!

I took this lens on a recent trip to Myanmar and it never missed a beat and I love the results.

Sorry Nikon, i’ll be waiting for the next version. If i’m shooting landscape & architecture, I use a prime. Zooms are for events and people. IMO center sharpness is more important for this usage scenario.

Nice review, as always! For portrait lense it might not be the best lense , where you are usually looking for the best center sharpness. It is the best 24-70mm for landscape and architecture where uniformity of sharpness is more important.

Finally, I sold mine. I bought a second D500 with the amazing 16-80 f2,8-f4 ; far more sharp. Eg. at 70=105mm (35mm eq), it’s as sharp as the new 70-200 mm E for less money & less weight. DX system is back ! Ps: I don’t like the focale cut at 70mm. I prefer around 105mm.

Maybe optically good and well constructed lens but I would only think about using it if I got payed very well for it!

I had this lens in my hands mounted on my D750 and I found the weight and size really ridiculous and no pleasure to use at all. For creativity fun is important!

If you want to enjoy photographing I would always choose something smaller and lighter. I am not even talking about the price that is skyhigh… A few years ago the older version was available for € 1200,- brand new (what is Nikon thinking with their new prices…).

I don’t disagree with the comments pointing out the review looks beyond the hype and test scores, but I find this a bit ironic coming from the man who deemed it necessary to issue an urgent warning when the zoom and focus rings were reversed on the new 70-200. “Service alert: the new lens is unusable”, the post warned, based on 30 seconds of not-in-the-field use..

Great review, Nasim. Unfortunately, I think there seems to be general consensus among Nikon afficionados that lens is too bulky and overpriced to upgrade from the older 24-70 f/2.8G version. I would be curious to see your review on the newly released 780-200 f/2.8E VR lens.

I’m very happy with my old Nikon 24-70mm G. It is a very reliable lens, and the one I will choose when I’m going to do a “reportage” shooting. The last version seems to be a more a landscape tool, than an overrall workhorse. If I would have been rich I would have both lenses; one for landscape and the other for reportage. Greetings.

This informative, useful review helps confirm that this new 24-70/2.8E VR does, indeed, have its strengths. I will be keeping my 24-70/2.8G when I (hopefully) add a 24-70/2.8E VR. Each backs-up the other, for the event of loss or malfunction, and each complements the other, with one being a nice closer-range people/pet/event lens, with excellent center sharpness, while the other is more-suited to longer range, and is sharper across the entire frame.

Being a Canon/Nikon shooter, I also appreciate the comparison with the EF 24-70/2.8L II.

Regarding the post asking about coma, I have seen at least one review, with images, and one other source that indicated the Nikkor 24-70/2.8E VR has good coma performance. This is a significant factor in my desire to add a 24-70/2.8E VR.

How do you compare the IQ of the 20mm 1.8 G, and the one of the new 24-70 mm zoom at its wide end, in terms of sharpness and distortion ? When I’m photographing landscape normally I use the widest focal distance I have, that is 24mm of my old 24-70mm G zoom. So, in order to photograph landscape perhaps is better for me to have the 20 mm prime and not the new 24-70 zoom. Greetings.

Had to buy this last May because the predecessor bumped down on gravel and was destroyed. What a luck! The new lens was my best friend on the Hurtigruten cruise along Norway, giving excellent results in may different situations. No Chance for tripod Pictures on a boat moving on he sea, sometimes also vibrating, especilly at the rear. Interestingly, first time using the new lens, a firmwae update was downloaded to my D800 resulting in raw picture size increasing from about 45 to 70 MByte. Results can be seen at http://www.landschaftsfotos.at/Hurtigruten_2016/Hurtigruten_2016engl.htm (used it together wih the 70-300 from Nikon)

Thank you for your thorough review of this new Nikon lens. I am a life long professional photographer primarily hired to shoot sculpture in place, nationwide. I had all the Nikon f:1.4 primes (24, 35, 50, 58, & 85). I bought both the older style 24-70 f:2.8 G and the new 24-70 f:2.8 E VR and did my own non-scientific back yard test comparison and was very impressed with the new lens. I sold the G lens and kept the E VR version. The cost of new filters was well worth it for having VR. With the addition of this lens, I am leaving behind most of my fast primes and am traveling lighter. I think it’s an excellent piece of equipment. Nikon did good!

Here is a thought: how do you define “center sharpness?” If I shoot a landscape, with all components in the landscape of equal value, and I shoot at, say, f16, then the center of the image is “center focus?”

Now I shoot a garden scene with a lovely flower at left third center of the frame. I put the focus point on the flower, and set the aperture to f4. Where is “center focus?”

So how do these two 24-70 lenses fare in these scenarios? Also, while not a great landscape photographer, I thought you were supposed to draw the viewer’s eye to a point in the image. A landscape where all is of similar interest is rather boring. Certainly one should use natural elements to draw the eye, but that is not always possible or desirable. All landscapes are not shot closed down, are they?

Is this lens too much for my D610? I am only an amateur, just beginning, but I need a lens having recently upgraded from a Dx camera and a Tamron DX lens. I feel if I buy less I fear I will just want to upgrade in a year and that can be costly and wasteful. I have been reading so many reviews, my head is spinning. But I seem to keep coming back to this one. Any advice would be appreciated.

I also have to say that this review particularly was written and focused on landscape photography whereas this lens is also a workhorse for wedding photography and no comparisons or shots of people were showcased and discussed. For landscape photography sure this lens would be welcome but what about the sharpness for subjects such as people? How does it compare to the older lens for portraits? I shot one wedding with this and right off the bat I could see the image was a little softer. I was taking prep shots of the bride and I could tell that her eyes didn’t have the intensity that I get from the older model. Even with increasing sharpness in Lightroom there wasn’t much difference. I wanted to know what everyone else’s experience with this lens has been. It does focus faster though. I did notice that too.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.